grassbl8d

Right now, I have 24, 35 and 85. I may sell the 24 just to get the 24-70 ii. Or I might just use the money to buy the 50....

any advise? Should I sell the 24 and get the 24-70 ii or should I just complete the set with 50 1.2. As of the moment, I don't have any standard zoom lens, I could live without one but if the 24-70 ii is that nice, then I'd rather get that...

would appreciate your advise.

also, is it easy to correct distortion of 24-70 ii?

Thanks!

« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 06:41:17 AM by grassbl8d »

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

lrfigueroa

The 50 1.2 is a very useful lens specially in low light, but the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be also nice to have. It looks you might need a zoom unless you do no mind changing lenses. On the other side, prime lenses are a little bit more sharp.

I also have read the reviews. Yesterday I got the Canon 24-70mm II and the Tamron 24-70mm VC at once to be tested against my Sigma 24-70mm HSM:

The Sigma is the worst, particularly at 70mm. The Tamron also is unuseable below F8 at 70mm, IMHO. I would estimate only two F-stops efficiency for the stabilizer of the Tamron at 70mm. May be more with shorter FL, but I haven't tested this. The TDP test results of the Tamron at 70mm is exactly what I discovered with my sample.

Unfortunately, the long focal end of the Canon is comparably short, I guess 62mm.

In summary, I am overwhelmed by the IQ of the Canon, based on the reviews I have not expected this. The difference between the Tamron and Canon is much more than the PZ test implies.

On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...

I sold my 50 f1.4 after my 24-70 II arrived. This lens now my favorite for indoor.

This lens is sharp, however, it does have little vignetting @ 24mm. I have tried two different copies from Crutchfield. Both lenses seem to have same sharpness and same vignetting. Here is my latest picture with 24-70 II. Distortion can be fixed in LR with 1 click.

On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...

Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105

I don't even do AFMA on new 24-70 II. Here is another shot at Parking lot Trunk & Treat, Pre-school.

I have the 24L and 50L, no zoom can touch them IMO, plus the bokeh of each is wonderful.

Have you used the 24-70 II? I compared it with the 24LII at 24mm and the 24-70II is definitely sharper (although the distortion is controlled much better on the 24L). The 24-70II is also sharper than the 50L. Of course sharpness isn't everything, the bokeh is much better on the primes, but the 24-70II is one sharp zoom.

Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105

I'm sure I'd like the 24-70 II, in fact, I had planned to get it next. But I've been doing a bit of shooting indoors in the evenings with the 35L and 85L II, and I'm usually around f/2 and high ISO (6400 and up), and for many of the shots the 35L is too wide and the 85L too long. The 24-70 II would be convenient, I'm just not sure it's fast enough. If I need to use the 600EX-RT, f/4 would work, too.

Eventually, I'll likely have both the 50L and the 24-70 II, it's just a matter of sequence. The 50L may be more useful in fall/winter indoors.